Apologetics Evangelism Online Articles

Apologetics 101 – Pride and Prejudice – The Demand for Evidence For God

This was published in Christian Today under the title –  What to say when someone asks for proof of God’s existence  Already it has had an incredible reaction, especially from atheists who have written in, proving my point.  I hope this is helpful to you if you are a Christian and are faced with the demand for evidence, and if you are an unbeliever I pray that you will think about what you are asking.   This is part two of my series on Apologetics 101.  You can get the first article here – An Apologia for Apologetics

“There isn’t enough evidence.”

It seems so reasonable. It’s what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in Christ?

Hard core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend, so the new softer, friendlier atheism defines itself as “we would believe in God if there was enough evidence”. Most of the atheists you will meet are in reality agnostics (no-knowledge). It seems reasonable and humble to admit that we do not know. This softer position says I do not know because there is not sufficient information. I can’t prove there is no God and you can’t prove there is. Provide me with the information and of course I would believe. This position is best summed up by Bertrand Russell’s statement that if he met God and was asked why he did not believe he would declare, “Because you did not provide enough evidence”.

Perhaps apathy is the predominant thought here. Many of your friends do not lie on their beds at night pondering the meaning of life and suffering from existential angst. They are far more concerned about the game they just watched, the bills they have to pay, and their next visit to the doctor. Normal life for them does not involve God.

So just as in the film Jerry Maguire, when Cuba Gooding Jnr asks Tom Cruise to “show me the money”, so our atheist/agnostic friends make this seemingly innocuous demand: “show me the evidence”. Even today I came across an atheist writer in a local newspaper, proudly asserting that we should not have Christian schools because we should only teach children facts based on evidence and Christianity is not based upon evidence. So how do we respond to this? Let’s talk about pride and prejudice.

Pride. Behind this seemingly humble and reasonable request there is actually a vast amount of pride. The trouble is that the person making this claim assumes they are in the position of being able to judge the evidence. They assume they have the neutrality, intelligence and ability to assess whether there is a God or not. They have, in effect, positioned themselves as the judge of The Judge. “I will not believe in a God who does X, Y or Z”, is a common claim. So the first question I simply ask anyone who demands evidence, is why they think they have the capacity to judge any such evidence? You cannot see God without humility. It is only when we kneel at the cross, rather than flying over it at drone height, that we are able to see where love and mercy meet. That is why Bertrand Russell will not be standing on the Day of Judgement accusing God; he will be kneeling at the name of Jesus, astounded and ashamed that he was so blind.
Prejudice. Very often, the person who demands evidence has already made a pre-judgement that there can be no such evidence. It’s a bit like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what you say, it is automatically dismissed, because it is perceived as being part of the conspiracy! I have often found that if you answer a particular problem, or provide a particular piece of evidence, the person you are answering immediately turns to something else and just avoids the issue. In order to overcome this prejudice and to avoid wasting a vast amount of time arguing about such vital issues as whether Noah walked to Australia to get kangaroos, I would simply suggest the following: ask anyone who demands evidence, what evidence is it that they would accept for God? Honest atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is almost nothing that would convince them of God. If a giant finger was to write in the sky, “I exist”, they would find some alternative way of explaining it. Anything other than believing in an almighty personal Creator.

When the Big Bang was proven and it became clear that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as the Bible stated, some atheists were so desperate to avoid the obvious implications that they refused at first to accept it (and afterwards quickly ran off to place their faith in the unproven multiverse theory). Their philosophy is what I call ABGism (Anything But God). It is not so much that they believe there is no evidence for God, but they are emotionally driven by their desire that there should be no evidence for God.

I was blind but now I see. In reality the situation is even worse than that. When you ask people to believe and trust in God, it is like asking a blind person to admire the intricacies of the Mona Lisa. You are talking to dead stones and asking these stones to dance. You are calling out to those who are dead in sins and trespasses, to come to life. It’s enough to make any self-respecting evangelist, preacher, Christian give up in despair. Except for those who know their God and his Bible! Because the Bible itself tells us that the word of God will not return to him empty, and that the Holy Spirit takes the word and enables the blind to see and the dead to live. The word preached and lived in the Dunamis (power) of the Spirit is dynamite!

Does this mean that there is no room for evidence? Of course not! The Holy Spirit always uses means. He usually addresses the heart through the mind, not the other way round. Therefore we should patiently present all the evidence that he gives us with the prayerful desire that he will take this and work in the lives of those we deal with. For most people, coming to faith in Christ is not a Damascus road experience. It is not one gigantic leap up Mount Improbable, but rather an evolving faith over a period of time, with the Holy Spirit using a number of factors, including evidence, experience, the Bible, coincidence, friends, foes and family.

I often tell people that they should use the motto of The X-Files – ‘the truth is out there’. An intelligent agnostic is someone who seeks that truth. A loving Christian is someone who seeks to present that truth. At the end of The Dawkins Letters I presented my 10 different reasons for believing that Christianity is true. The creation, the human mind and spirit, the moral law, beauty, religion, experience, history, the church, the Bible, and Jesus. Why not make your own list?

In today’s Christian world we are blessed with a significant number of books that intelligently, attractively and insightfully present the evidence for Jesus Christ. My recommended book this week is Josh McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It’s lengthy, but it contains a wealth of information.

Christians who seek to present the good news of Jesus Christ will be prayerful, loving people who are saturated with the word of God and who know how to present it in the context of a culture which is deaf, dumb and blind to that word. If we do so, we will not just be presenting the evidence, we will be the evidence.

David Robertson is the moderator of the Free Church of Scotland and director of Solas CPC, Dundee.


  1. Years before last year’s joint survey into belief by the the Church of England, Evangelical Alliance and Hope which reported a large % of those questioned didn’t believe Jesus was a real person, I’d encountered statements to that effect from then colleagues with degrees in philosophy, but when countered by a simple statement that there was plenty, sufficient, evidence from within the bible and outside it to prove he “walked among us” they didn’t pursue the point. It evaporated never to be raised again.

    I recall hearing Tim Keller say something to the effect that in his experience in post, post-modern New York there were not many in the under 30 generations, 5 or so years ago who would question the validity of miracles, ask for evidence, and in that “spirituality soup” world-view the questions centred on the uniqueness of the claims of Christianity, and morality, not evidence. The question of evidence was a one which differed between generations.and evangelism based on the “4 Spiritual laws” had no, or little traction, with the young today

    Perhaps UK atheism has not caught up with New York, has not progressed from a scientific construct of life to a social/spiritual construct. Perhaps it is behind the times. Secular Scotland behind the times? Regressive? Surely not.

    But I have little doubt that David encounters atheist with a “multi-verse” of their own shifting sands of beliefs/argumentation, from science to social science, from physics to philosophy, from law to licence and more.
    Would it be too much to ask doubters, as Keller does, to “doubt their doubts.”

    My faith is based on fact, based on evidence. Otherwise it is in vain, “if Christ was not raised from the dead.”

    A comedian was asked what he would say when he met God. He replied, “I’d ask for a second opinion.”

    Tragically unfunny, really.


  2. Hi David, ‘m interested in your phrase, “When the big bang was proven…”. I didn’t know it had been! and in fact personally believe it never will be because it is not consistent with the Genesis 1 account of creation. If, as one of my friends says, the big bang is the beginning of everything, what went bang?

    1. John – I think the Big BAng has been proven. From a Christian point of view its great news – because it confirms that the Universe had a beginning. It also fits in that what do you think the Lord created with – a whimper or a big bang?! It is very consistent with the Genesis 1 view of creation. If your friend is an atheist his question is like asking who made God?!

      1. Thanks David. As believers we will obviously have to agree to disagree over whether the BB is consistent with Genesis 1 which I take to be a literal narrative of how God created everything simply by speaking it into being in 6 24 hour periods. I have read widely on the subject and have yet to read of proof for the BB and in fact by the very nature of it, i can’t see how it can be proven one way or the other. By the way, my friend is a well-known Christian evangelist who, like me, believes the BB theory to be unbiblical – hence the point he was making.

      2. Fair enough…but let me simply point out that Genesis 1 says nothing about six 24 hour periods – indeed given that hours are measured by the sun that is impossible!

        The point still stands that if the Lord created everything out of nothing – the Big Bang seems an obvious way to do it!

      3. “As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or OT at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience…” (Professor James Barr 1997)

      4. AS far as I know there are plenty. So? Anyone reading the text can see that the first three days at least cannot have been 24 hour solar days – given that the sun, at least as we perceive from earth, did not exist. Genesis 1 is not a scientific text book and to read it as such is ridiculous and leads to all kinds of problems – not least with Genesis 2!

      5. David, my last word on the subject. I’m not reading Genesis 1 as a scientific text book – though it is not unscientific in what it says, as affirmed by many, many very eminent Christian scientists who completely reject the BB theory – but rather as historical narrative which was, I believe, the intention of the original author, every much as Genesis 3 onwards and that makes Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly compatible . If Genesis 1 isn’t literally true, where does Genesis start becoming literally true, and who is going to make that call? I haven’t yet met a genuine believer who doubts the historicity of Genesis 3 or the story of Abraham but have met many who can’t accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2. For me that doesn’t add up. Using the principles of historical-grammatical interpretation, it’s all got to be treated in the same way. We will clearly have to agree to disagree as brothers in Christ! The Lord bless you in all your varied labours for the Master.

    2. Hello David
      As an experimental researcher at professorial level, I would also like to take issue with your phrase: ‘When the big bang was proven…’. 1. As a singularity (one off event) – it is not amenable to proof in the normal, scientific methodological sense (cf. other aspects of the mythical molecules-to-Man evolutionary scenario). 2. The Big bang hypothesis is in trouble scientifically. Some secular scientists are reacting (and publishing) against it. A summary is given in this 2004 article: http://creation.com/secular-scientists-blast-the-big-bang . Things got worse in 2015 and recent paper listed some of the problems – B Ali, A.F., and Das, S. 2015, Physics Letters B. Volume 741(4): 276–279. Their paper lists some of the flaws they recognised, including “the smallness problem,” “the coincidence problem,” “the flatness problem,” dark matter, and the inexplicable singularity from which the universe supposedly sprung. For the Bible believing Christian there really is no scientific problem with a miraculous creation in 6 literal days as described in Genesis 1. Nothing that has ever been measured is incompatible with that.
      That the days were literal 24 hour periods is made clear by such terms as : ‘..first day, second day..third day etc . Each day had an ‘…evening and a morning’, and also in Exodus 20:11 (God Himself speaking) compares the creation week to the 6 day working week . A day is defined as the period for earth to rotate once upon on its axis. There is no need for the Sun to define that, simply a light source (Genesis 1:3).
      I applaud your stance against the unproven and unproveable atheism of our day. I urge caution in adoption of current scientific theories which by virtue of the self correcting mechanism within science will be ‘here today, gone (or at least changed) tomorrow’. Where such theories clearly oppose the teaching of Scripture (as the big-bang does) they are to be rejected
      Steve Taylor

      1. Thank you Steve for such a clear, informed, knowledgeable viewpoint which upholds the authority and clear meaning of the biblical text and demonstrates its complete believability.

      2. Steve – Thanks. I agree completely that we should not accept the current theories of the day nor seek to prove the Bible from science. However I don’t agree that the Big Bang theory goes against scripture and I would urge caution about your taking comfort that some atheistic scientists are now opposed to the Big Bang theory. That is because they do not want to accept what Scripture says (that there was a beginning) and therefore they are determined to discredit the theory and go back to the previous ‘matter is eternal’ position.

  3. You’ve used the same old false arguments about atheism again. No, most atheists one meets are not agnostics; they are atheists. Christians often try to claim this since their faith cannot withstand someone who has the evidence and arguments to disbelieve in their god. They must convince themselves that *everyone* must agree with them.
    You’ve also used the tired claim of pride. Pride has nothing to do with having evidence that there are no gods at all. This is again an attempt by a Christian to make believe that everyone really does agree with him, the desperate need for external validation. There is no evidence for the Christian god, no evidence for Jesus Christ, no evidence for any of the essential events of the bible. I disbelieve in religions for the same reasons you disbelieve in other religions than your own. No evidence.

    Or can I claim that it is only pride that keeps you from accepting the truth about Krishna?

    You also say this ” loving Christian is someone who seeks to present that truth.” Now, why is it that Christians themselves can’t agree on what this truth is? There is no reason to believe your version any more than I should believe the Orthodox Christians, the Arminian Christians, the Coptic Christians, the Unitarian Universalists, the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I suspect you wish to claim that only your version is the TrueChrisitanity. How do you propose to demonstrate this?

    1. Oh dear – you atheists really need to get your heads together and work out which version of your fantasy you are going to portray. Because hard core atheism was so illogical and hard to prove most atheists now revert to soft core – ie. agnosticism. They claim that they don’t know but only because there is not enough evidence.

      The pride point is that you think you have the ability to evaluate the evidence – even more so that you can make the absurd statement that you have evidence that there are no gods at all. Feel free to provide that evidence. There is ‘no evidence’ for Jesus Christ? Ignorance and arrogance combined!

      Again your ignorance is shown in your comments about Christianity. Can I suggest that the next time you post you do some reading, thinking and research (note – not just what you garner off google!)? Perhaps then you might avoid the faux pas of handing me the evidence of exactly what I was writing about. QED…

      1. Nope, “we” atheists already agree that there are no god/gods. There is no difference between you invented “hard core atheism” and atheism. It’s all the same and it is not agnosticism. You do try very hard to make believe that atheists are “really” agnostics, but we aren’t. And that frightens you very much. You must tell yourself that your god is so obvious that everyone must agree with you, when that is not the case at all.

        Atheists say that there is no evidence for god e.g. “not enough evidence”, so the conclusion is that there are not gods. Agnosticism is the position that there is not enough evidence to make a decision for a god or for no god. It may help your argument if you know the definitions of the words you use and not what you’ve invented to support your false claims. It is always a shame when a Christian tries to use intentional deceit to support their claims.

        I have the ability to evaluate the evidence with no problem. The same intellectual abilities that show that there is no evidence for gods are the same abilities that allow humans to interact with their environment. I know that your god doesn’t exist, for the same reasons that you are sure that the gods of other religions don’t exist, no evidence. Or do you believe in Allah, Vishnu, Tezcatlipoca etc? Or are you just too full of “pride” and refuse to believe in those gods?

        I have plenty of evidence that none of the essential events in the bible happened. For example, there is no evidence for a magical mountain covering flood that was all over the world. We have the lack of evidence for that flood, no world wide flood deposits, no mixed fossils of humans and velociraptors. We also have that Christians can’t agree on when it might have happened or how it happened or if it happened at all, since Christians don’t agree on what in the bible is literal and what is figurative. We also have the evidence that something else happened entirely, that the world’s civilization didn’t notice this flood, that geological processes went along as usual with no magical changes, etc. Same with stores in the NT, no evidence that there was a man who raised the dead, who supposedly gathered a legion’s worth of men (plus women and children) at least twice right outside of an occupied city, that there was a major earthquake, the darkening of an afternoon sky for hours and the dead patriarchs getting up and walking around hanging out with the Jews in Jerusalem on one day. And of course Christians can’t agree when this happened, how the story goes or can agree on the supposed most holy site in their religion.

        There is no evidence that the Christian god exists just like there is no evidence that Mohammed rode to Jerusalem on a magic pony, that the Hindu gods battled above India in magical machines, that Quetzalcoatl taught the Mayans anything at all, that the Wicca Goddess grants spells.

        I know quite a lot about Christianity, having been a Christian. I know that Christians don’t agree on many things. I suspect all you have is the usual One True Scotsman argument, that no version of Christianity is true except yours, and you have no evidence to support that at all. I’ve read the entire bible as a believer and as not. I’ve read quite a few apologists from Augustine to Craig and your inability to answer my question is just more evidence that your claims are false. Please do tell me what “evidence” I have handed you. Or is that just some lovely wishful thinking on your part? And please do tell me what evidence you think there is to support the existence of your version of your god and Jesus Christ.

      2. Club – you really need to get out a bit! Your fellow atheists are constantly lambasting me for saying that atheists believe there are no gods. I know what an agnostic is but it seems as though the English language and your lack of logic in using it seems to be inhibiting your argument. The evidence you have handed me? Your whole posts – shot through with the kind of arrogance, pride and prejudice that I was writing about in my original article. Once again thank you….there were, believe it or not, some people who thought I was exaggerating – now all l have to do is get them to read your posts! Much appreciated. There will of course be a day when you will bow down before Jesus, not to demand evidence, but in shame and fear because of your crass pride, ignorance and arrogance. I pray that does not happen and that before then you genuinely repent.

      3. I’d love to see where these atheists have “lambasted” you, Flea. Can you direct me to any posts from these atheists saying atheists do believe in gods? I’m suspecting you can’t and will offer some excuse why you mysteriously can’t. It’s hilarious that you would make such a claim, when the definition of atheist is having no belief in god/gods.

        For claiming that you know what the definition of agnostic is, you are trying to claim that atheists are agnostics. I have no lack of logic at all. I have pointed out that you are trying to claim that atheists aren’t what the definition of atheist is: someone who does not believe in god/gods. You are desperately trying to claim that atheists are agnostics and the only reason that seems to be is that you are terribly afraid of the existence of atheists, people who are sure that there is no evidence for gods and who are just as happy or happier than you are. The existence of atheists makes the claim from yoru bible, that anyone can look around and see the evidence for your god, into a lie. If part of your bible is a lie, then there little reason to believe in the rest of it, since there is no evidence to support the claims of Jews or Christians. I’ve asked you to tell me what evidence you have that your god exists and no others do. I’m waiting for answers to my questions and for the evidence supporting your claims.

        Again, you depend on willful ignorance and intentionally bearing false witness against others to support your religion. You certainly do make claims that my evidence is bad but you can’t actually show that, you only can make vague claims and that is all. Why is my evidence bad, Flea? I want actual evidence against it, not just personal attacks from you.
        You are not only exaggerating in your article, you are lying. I’m not bothered by a Christian doing this, you support the point that religion doesn’t make anyone more moral.

        Please do encourage as many people as possible to read my posts. I would also ask you to encourage as many people as possible to read the entire bible. They can do it at my favorite bible website, http://www.biblegateway.com.

        I do love the threats that you make, Flea. Christians have been threatening people for a couple thousand years now and still no Jesus coming back and fulfilling your violent fantasies. What will happen when you are on your deathbed and still your bible fails?

        Thank you for praying for me. I have yet one more Christian who is praying for me and I can show that those prayers do nothing at all. Now, since I’ve had at least a hundred, if not more, Christians claiming that they are praying for me to accept Jesus for around 20 years now, and I’m still a happy atheist, why is this, Flea? Is it that you aren’t praying correctly as I’ve had some Christians claim? Is it that your god loves an honest atheist and finds me much better than you? Is it that your prayers mean nothing to a god that supposedly has a “plan” that other Christians claim he does? Or is it that there is no god at all to answer your prayers? I do wish, if it did answer prayers, it might answer those of the children dying of starvation, dying of their parents abusing them, the people abused by “men of God” or perhaps answering the prayer of Christians murdered by another group of theists who are just as sure that their religion is the “truth” or the prayers of soldiers that the they come home to their loved ones. This god of yours certainly is impotent.

        But since you bring up the nonsense in Revelation, perhaps you can explain something for me. Why does your god first kill everyone that disagrees with it, and imprison Satan, but after it allows all believers to live for an aeon ruled by Jesus, why does it intentionally free Satan and allow Satan to corrupt innocent people? Why does it intentionally allow the snake back into Eden? Revelation 20-to the end? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being do this? And why don’t Christians agree on what hell is and what heaven is? For all of your claims of having some “truth”, how is it that none of you can show you have it?

      4. Excellent! Keep them coming – its like a collection of the NFA’s greatest hits. But you are not exactly the sharpest tac in the box are you? No-one said that atheists believe in God! What was said is that the new soft core atheists claim to be agnostic because they don’t have enough evidence. If you bother to read any atheist debates/fb pages you will come across this definition. Atheists are not those who believe there are no gods – they just don’t believe in gods because there is not enough evidence. I admit that it is a bit pedantic and I am glad you agree with me – but you really need to have a word with your fellow atheists!

        “The existence of atheists makes the claim from yoru bible, that anyone can look around and see the evidence for your god, into a lie.” – perhaps you would like to stop and think about that one? Then you might work out the logical fallacy in it.

        And I make no threats. I just speak the truth…a truth which you choose to ignore. If I warn a man that he is about to walk off a cliff and he ignores that and walks off the cliff, who is to blame? As I say – try thinking, stop ranting, take a deep breath and if you really want answers to your questions keep reading the series I am doing on these questions – or the Dawkins Letters or Magnificent Obsession. But the truth is you don’t want answers and you will just jumpr from subject to subject in your vague, irrational and incoherent rants. Again that was one of my main points in the article – so thanks for proving it (for anyone else reading this – honestly club is not a spoof that I am making up just to prove my point. This is the real face of the modern dumbed down atheism…its the Trumpisation of the New atheism….!)

    2. This really is very funny to me.

      I was having a conversation with an atheist recently. I shared my journey of always wanting more, and like Mick Jagger I could get no satisfaction, then finding it in God with contentment, peace and gratitude. His response was to say that I was “inspired” and that “your god certainly does exist”. Some time later he talked of their being “clear evidence of the non-existence of any benevolent all powerful god”.

      His argument was the “Californian” whatever works for you exists.

      So logically, yes I saw where he was coming from if in your mind God exists, then for you he does. If in your mind he doesn’t then not. So, not problems there. Until simple objective logic was applied and I said well either he exist or doesn’t – can’t be a subjective both and it would be silly to argue that.

      Well, the conversation took a different turn after that and he no longer is speaking to me lol. I suppose I would look back on it now an see if I was “inspired” then what was it inspiring me. If I was deluded then it would be a waste of time talking with me. Therefore there was a cognitive dissonance between what he was saying about me and his statement about God not existing. He coped with that with with insults then not speaking.

      At other times I have had conversations with atheists where there has been differences of views held and mutual respect shown. Those are the kind of conversations I prefer.

      So you can attack the person for nothing else than having a faith in Jesus. A believer can then turn to scripture and take that as a compliment in disguise! Is it not true that Dawkins has done more for Christian evangelism than some evangelists lol.

      Still – it’s fun to have these conversations so thanks for the opportunity to engages with your comments.

      1. Well, Adam, I am glad you feel you got contentment with your god. People all over the world get the same thing without your god at all, from caring about their fellow humans or thinking that their particular religion gives them this contentment, peace and gratitude. This shows that your god is not the only font of these things. Which belies the usual Christian claim that no one else can be as good or as happy as they are.

        I do not accept claims that some mysterious atheist has said these things, Adam. Again, I am looking for the words of atheists who have said “your god certainly exists”. It’s very easy to make up nonsense and I know that Christians have no problem in lying, despite what their supposed god commands. I just have to laugh at such obvious nonsense. If this did actually happen, it seems that all you’ve done is try to misconstrue what the atheist said. Is a figment of your imagination the same as the bible god? If it isn’t, the atheist never agreed that your god existed at all.

        The argument that a god exists as long as you believe in it is rather silly and something that makes your religion rather worthless and the claims of Christians false. Your god then is as valid as any god, from Thor to Tezcatlipoca to Horus to the Wiccan Goddess. I’m more than happy to say that your god is a figment of your imagination if you are. If making believe in a god makes you not go out and murder people, great! But that isn’t the god you worship, is it? Let me know if I’m wrong, but you believe in a god that is existential and accurately described in the Bible. You believe that it damned everyone and then sent a part of it as a human to pay for those supposed “sins” and that entity was murdered violently to get you “salvation”. If you don’t believe in this but only a figment of your imagination, that’s wonderful.
        I can understand why someone would cease talking to you if you tried so hard to misconstrue what was said. However, my skin isn’t quite so thin.

        There is a type of TrueChristian who always claims that they somehow have mutual respect with some mysterious atheists, but when it gets down to it, what they call respect is unquestioning acceptance of their claims about their religion. I would love to see one of these conversations you’ve had with atheists who “respect” your claims.

        I can attack someone who presents lies about atheists and I can show their claims about their religions to be wrong. I know that many Chrisitans want to fantasize that they are really honest to goodness martyrs if someone shows that they are wrong. Alas, a book written by persecuted authors isn’t predicting martyrdom, it is just stating a fact they know. It also doesn’t make the claims of the Christian any more true. What is always most amusing by these attempts is that Christians attack each other far more than atheists do, each sect and each Christian sure that only their version is the true one. You folks have murdered each other over such nonsense. That certainly shows me that there is no god involved.

        No, Dawkins has not done more for Christian evangelism than any evangelist. Most have not a clue who he is.

  4. clubschadenfreude

    Where do you get the evidence from for your statement that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus? Are you really interested in finding out about the truth, looking at the recommended book in the original post, or is your mind so closed? Without any corroborative “authoritative referencing” it could be seen as little more than a trite statement of opinion.

    I think you demonstrate very little understanding of the law of evidence, the burden of proof, standard of proof, what is permissible, relevant that is “logically probative of the fact in issue”.

    Geoff (as mentioned in other posts -a former atheist and lawyer until age of 47).

  5. …club,

    Some further thoughts.

    You say you were a Christian. What did you then believe to classify yourself as such? How did you become a Christian? It would be great to hear your testimony, the process, stages.

    Is it possible you never really were a Christian? You seem a bit rattled. If you really were a Christian you must know the consequences of apostasy and also know that Christianity does not have a geographic centre.

    As a deep thinker, you must know that truth exists before evidence . The law courts and science wouldn’t operate otherwise. eg X murders Y but there is no evidence. The truth/fact remains that X murdered. (Apologies to all who have read a similar comment from me in other posts on this site.)

    I pray that you come to really really know Jesus and His loveliness.

    Every blessing in Christ Jesus.


  6. “There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”

    Atheist bus campaign 2008 supported by Dawkins et al.

    Is that the balance of probabilities – 51%? Rather dangerous odds if wrong.

    What balance of probabilities would an atheist accept given that the consequences may be eternal?

  7. Clubschadenfreude, do you hold the belief that one should only believe in something for which there is evidence?

  8. David, I am an atheist and have been an atheist for as long as I have been able to give conscious thought to the matter – over 50 years. I distinctly remember thinking in a religious study class at school aged about 7 and thinking “this makes no sense at all”. It was an anti Damascene moment if you like. My mother was a devout Catholic yet none of her, or any other religious person’s, talk of a god being a part of their lives means anything to me. You could preach at me until my dying day- it would make no difference – none of it resonates or has any meaning for me. You are free in this country to believe what you like ; fortunately I am also free to not believe in your god. Your views do not trump mine.

    1. Jeanne….of course my views do not trump yours. I would not want them to. But it is not just about your views or mine. Your feelings/experience or mine. It is about truth and reality. Your view that everything come from nothing, or that mind came from non- mind is an illogical fantasy. You need to wake up and realise that the “God awareness’ in each one of us is something that we need to pay attention to – not suppress…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *